Jump to content

X Spike

Member
  • Content Count

    2752
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    17

Everything posted by X Spike

  1. I appreciate the shoutout to RJ and I's CEDA win, thanks lol. I agree with you on all points about the value of cross-x, I've been on this website as a long time, served as a mod, created 8 Mins of Inherency in the 1NC/The Hole, and have put a lot of energy into this website over the years. In fact, it is my love for the website that drives me to create a new one. Having been here since long before David (and even Kerpen's) ownership, I know what the website used to look like. It's an ugly husk of its former self. A lot of younger debaters think the website is ugly or too dead for them to populate, they want something new. While I love what this website has been, I think that the debate community needs an upgrade for its forums and social node/center, and a new platform is the easiest way to provide those upgrades. There are a lot of features that this website just can't provide, it's built in an old and out-dated web builder and it's unmanaged like a wild garden. A fresh build seems in order, not just an overhaul of this site to better management. Damage has already been done since the 4-years-ago tweet of "Cross-x isn't dead, we promise!" - most people presume the space is already a dead zone, and for the most part it is. Its traffic is nowhere near its peak numbers, its activity is sparse and maintained by a small handful of committed posters. While I would agree cross-x carried high brand recognition AND reputation years ago, its brand recognition now actually operates in the reverse direction as a sign of negative reputation. When people in debate hear "cross-x.com" they get a nostalgic look of fond memory but are ultimately left with a sour taste in their mouth. Time for a new brand.
  2. Agreed. The owners' absenteeism has been a great pain the back and the wallet for evazon owners since the website changed ownership. David seems hands-off to the point of not even really owning the website or existing. The debate community deserves better.
  3. I'm both an author due payment and interested in participating in a class action.
  4. Ask me why, or ask why David is absent? I am curious on why the owner/admin doesn't check in though. It seems that this site has been somewhat abandoned by leadership.
  5. How and what is the easiest way of doing so?
  6. That's... definitely illegal. Who's responsible for issuing payments?
  7. Bump, I've requested a payout numerous times and received nothing. Can I get an update from admin?
  8. I requested a payout over two weeks ago and it's still processing. I've also messaged you (South-X) directly and received no correspondence. Is there something gumming up the works that I'm not aware of? Or is there just no one processing my request? Just trying to access the money i've earned.
  9. Are you looking for a coach who can provide unique research skills, dedication, and one-on-one work with debaters? Are you looking for someone who can be available at all times of the day to work on argument development and technique? Someone who could fulfill a judging requirement and provide coaching and updates at the tournament? Then maybe I'm the guy you're looking for. My name is Chris Leonardi, and I debate for the University of Oklahoma. I've been in the activity for 6 years now, and have accomplished a decent amount in the time I've been debating. In my first year of college debate my partner, RJ Giglio, and I were ranked in the top 5 of the coaches poll for most of the fall season and were in the deep elims of Harvard (Quarters), Wake (Semifinals), Texas (Quarters), North Texas (finals and victory) and the CEDA national championship, which we won (Oklahoma's 5th such title in the last 7 years). In this most recent season I have begun debating with a new partner, but have maintained relative success in the national circuit, starting the season with two straight wins at the UMKC and UNLV tournaments, where I was top speaker and 4th speaker respectively, and have made it to the octofinals of all other major tournaments I have attended so far (Harvard, Wake, USC and Fullerton), receiving varying speaker awards at all of them. While I am still young and learning, I also aim to inspire younger debaters and to pass as much knowledge as possible down to younger students who have the same love for this activity that I have. I have 2 years of experience coaching high school debate so far, having worked with teams mostly on an individual, contractual basis. But now I would like to try to find a home with a high school program and settle down as I move into my last 3.5 years of college debate. If you think that you could use a coach who could provide card cutting, argument coaching and judging skills for your squad, I'd love to hear from you. I can be reached at: chris.m.leonardi@gmail.com Thanks, Chris
  10. X Spike

    "The" PIC

    Version 1.0

    There's not much to say about this file. It's a very extensive "The" PIC file - 71 pages, including 2NC and 2NR blocks, more specific link work, impact work and more alt/CP solvency extensions. This is a file that I can say two things definitively about: 1) it has won a lot of debates, and 2) there isn't an argument to this CP that isn't answered by at least 2 cards in the file. Index...................................................................................................................................... 1 1NC - “The†PIC.................................................................................................................. 3 1NC - “The†PIC.................................................................................................................. 4 2NC - Overview................................................................................................................... 6 2NR - Overview.................................................................................................................... 7 2NC - “Perm: do the CPâ€.................................................................................................. 8 2NC - “Perm: do bothâ€...................................................................................................... 9 2NC - “Perm: do bothâ€.................................................................................................... 10 2NC - Functional Competition........................................................................................ 11 2NC - (Word) PICs bad................................................................................................... 12 2NC - Censorship Bad.................................................................................................... 13 2NC - Censorship Bad.................................................................................................... 14 2NC - Discourse First..................................................................................................... 15 2NC - Discourse First..................................................................................................... 16 2NC - Discourse First..................................................................................................... 17 2NC - A2 “This is stupidâ€............................................................................................... 18 2NC - Grammar........................................................................................................... 19 2NC - Racism [MUST READ]........................................................................................... 20 2NC - Racism [MUST READ]........................................................................................... 21 2NC - Racism [MUST READ]........................................................................................... 22 2NC - Racism [MUST READ]........................................................................................... 23 2NR - Racism............................................................................................................... 24 2NC - Ethics Good......................................................................................................... 25 2NC - Ethics Good......................................................................................................... 26 2NC - Ethics Good......................................................................................................... 27 2NC - Ethics Good......................................................................................................... 28 2NR - Ethics Good......................................................................................................... 29 2NC - Freedom............................................................................................................. 30 2NR - Freedom............................................................................................................. 31 2NC - Util Bad.............................................................................................................. 32 2NC - Util Bad.............................................................................................................. 33 2NC - Util Bad.............................................................................................................. 34 2NR - Util Bad.............................................................................................................. 35 2NC - Realism.............................................................................................................. 36 2NR - Realism.............................................................................................................. 37 Link - Other................................................................................................................. 38 Link - Power/Knowledge................................................................................................ 39 Link - Bleiker/Acceptance.............................................................................................. 40 Link - Bleiker/Neutral Discourse..................................................................................... 41 Link - Campbell/Realism............................................................................................... 42 Link - Campbell/Objectivity.......................................................................................... 43 Link - Policy-making.................................................................................................... 44 Link - Peacekeeping...................................................................................................... 45 Link - Assumption........................................................................................................ 46 Link - Government Discourse......................................................................................... 47 Link - Naming.............................................................................................................. 48 Link - Naming/Nationalism........................................................................................... 49 Link - Failed States....................................................................................................... 50 Link - Development....................................................................................................... 51 Link - Humor............................................................................................................... 52 Impact - Tuathail......................................................................................................... 53 Impact - Tuathail......................................................................................................... 54 Impact - Biopower......................................................................................................... 55 Impact - Biopower......................................................................................................... 56 Impact - Rajaram 2NC Bomb......................................................................................... 57 Impact - Rajaram/Territoriality.................................................................................... 58 Impact - Rajaram/Territoriality.................................................................................... 59 Impact - Shapiro.......................................................................................................... 60 Impact - T/ War............................................................................................................ 61 Impact - Otherization................................................................................................... 62 Impact - Otherization................................................................................................... 63 Impact - Racism I/L...................................................................................................... 64 Impact - Racism I/L...................................................................................................... 65 Impact - Movements..................................................................................................... 66 Solvency - Language.................................................................................................... 67 Solvency - Re-thinking................................................................................................. 68 Solvency - Un-mapping................................................................................................ 69 Solvency - Tuathail...................................................................................................... 70 Solvency - Tuathail...................................................................................................... 71

    10.00 USD

  11. Version 1.0

    This is the Welcome to New Vegas affirmative that was read at the UT Round Robin by myself and Hank Stolte. Although it was only read once, it has never dropped a ballot. The affirmative makes an argument about the nature of politics, subjectivity, and even debate. The affirmative contends that debate itself is nothing but a recycled set of different political building blocks; flows that reconstruct themselves in spaces that are considered "unique" because of their influence on students and their individual relation to thought, but that are actually more like empty museum halls. Each space doesn't actually influence us: encountering an SBSP aff doesn't teach us to oppose space militarization, it teaches us how to become technical and pick up ballots. The nature of the ballot and its relation to advocacy always-already complicates our ability to be authentically political, and so the affirmative chooses instead to conceptualize the space of the debate that the 1AC occurs in as refuse: something that denies the usefulness of the system as a whole and questions the nature of debate as something that produces pedagogical responsibility. Instead, the ballot becomes a bomb, an encounter with the selves in debate we construct as political agents and the selves outside of the room that are competitors and not politicians. The way that debate and its norms, rules and regulations construct our subjectivity is deemed problematic; something that segments and divides our essence and produces a self-hatred that teaches us to parcel out and destroy the wills and desires of our essential self in a compromise for ballots. We have proclaimed the death of debate: in its place, only the starfish that we call the 1AC.

    20.00 USD

  12. Or, and this is really crazy, you could cut some.
  13. Ignore everything said above. This is pretty much useless. Could you explain what the argument was?
  14. Semis was Greenhill SU walking over another Greenhill team and Churchill/Highland Park. Finals was Greenhill SU/Churchill LB.
  15. All you have to win is that there's no univocity of meaning. The fact that people think different things prove that there's no univocal interpretation of moral reality because the nature of language as lacking means that all truth is necessarily subject to interpretation.
  16. You really don't need cards for this. It's not a question of good/bad, it's a question of true/false. And the fact that there's a true/false binary to begin with proves relativism.
  17. I don't... understand... Why would epistemology NOT be first?
  18. X Spike

    2 Counterplans?

    Lol. I know, right?
  19. What is the "Risk" argument D&G make?
  20. Hedging your bets on terminal defense: not a winner. Read that, but shorten it and read offense. Kk.
  21. X Spike

    2 Counterplans?

    That's not being unclear, that's saying something entirely different. An internal net benefit is like an Executive Powers net benefit to a Memo/XO CP. An external net benefit is something like politics or another disad. One of the main differences is that internal net benefits don't always have to be disadvantages to the plan, just advantages to the CP because there's something structurally barring the perm from solving it.
  22. That's the new one they've been readin. They call it "framework." I'm insulted by your clever ruse
  23. Or my old archnemesis Plan Flaw. *shakes fist* PLAN FLAAAAW!
×
×
  • Create New...